Adam v Bank of Montreal; Adam v The Manufacturers Date:, 2018 MBCA 37

Citation: Adam v Bank of Montreal; Adam v The Manufacturers Date: 20180409 Life Insurance Company (Manulife), 2018 MBCA 37 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Chief Justice Richard J. Chartier Madam Justice Freda M. Steel Mr. Justice William J. Burnett Docket: AI16-30-08725 ) BETWEEN : ) ) bANK OF MONTREAL ) ) (Plaintiff) Respondent ) ) - and - ) ) V. R. Jhanji MARIAM ADAM ) for the Appellant ) (Defendant) Appellant ) ) M. Dron - and - ) for the Respondent ) The Manufacturers Life THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE ) Insurance Company INSURANCE COMPANY (MANULIFE) ) (Manulife) ) (Third Party) ) ) K. J.

Muys - and - ) for the Respondent ) Bank of Montreal Docket: AI17-30-08742 ) BETWEEN : ) ) Appeals heard and BANK OF MONTREAL ) Decision pronounced: ) April 9, 2018 (Plaintiff) ) ) - and - ) ) MARIAM ADAM ) ) (Defendant) Appellant ) ) - and - ) ) THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE ) INSURANCE COMPANY (MANULIFE) ) ) (Third Party) Respondent ) BURNETT JA (for the Court): [ 1 ] The defendant appeals a decision granting

summary judgment to the plaintiff and the third party. [ 2 ] The standard of review applicable on an appeal from a

summary judgment order is set out in Perth Services Ltd v Quinton et al , 2009 MBCA 81 at paras 22-28 . [ 3 ] There is no merit to these appeals. [ 4 ] With respect to the plaintiff’s claim, to quote this Court’s decision in Coral-Reef Holdings Ltd v Canadian Imperial

Bank of Commerce , 1995 CarswellMan 33 at para 25 , “The Bank’s case is the essence of simplicity.” This is a straightforward debt claim for a credit card balance of $15,552.04 plus interest and costs. [ 5 ] With respect to the third party claim, the defendant completely failed to comply with the contractual notice and proof of loss requirements under the subject policy. We agree with the third party’s submission that this was a case of non-compliance, not a case of imperfect compliance, and that the defendant’s actions were not reasonable.

We are also satisfied that the defendant meets none of the requirements for relief from forfeiture and that the third party has suffered significant prejudice. [ 6 ] The motion judge did not misdirect himself, his decision on the merits of the motion is not so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice, and there is no basis to interfere with his decision regarding costs. [ 7 ] The appeals are therefore dismissed with costs to the plaintiff and the third party. JA CJM JA